While President Trump is claiming victory after Tuesday’s midterm elections, the vast majority of candidates he endorsed lost to their Democratic opponents.

quote:

To be fair, Trump-backed candidates like Brian Kemp and Ron DeSantis won close races in Georgia and Florida, respectively (Kemp’s opponent, Stacey Abrams, has not yet conceded), and Republicans strengthened their control over the U.S. Senate by defeating pro-Trump Democrats in red states (like Joe Donnelly in Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota). However, Democrats flipped a Republican senate seat in Nevada, and could possibly flip a Republican senate seat in Arizona, which is still too close to call as of this writing.

Michael: I can't tell if you are kidding but Saramago is definitely more on the parable end of things in his writing -- not dense, not a difficult read. You don't need months of study, try him out. I really enjoyed The Cave and All the Names as well.

No joke, I was referring to the first 2 paragraphs of the review. Doesn't sound like the sort of thing I would easily digest.

Ursula K. LeGuin wrote:

Some years ago a reliable friend told me I should read José Saramago's Blindness. Faced with pages of run-on sentences and unparagraphed dialogue without quotation marks, I soon quit, snarling about literary affectations. Later I tried again, went further, and quit because I was scared. Blindness is a frightening book. Before I'd let an author of such evident power give me the horrors, he'd have to earn my trust. So I went back to the earlier novels and put myself through a course of Saramago.

It's hard not to gallop through prose that uses commas instead of full stops, but once I learned to slow down, the rewards piled up: his sound, sweet humour, his startling imagination, his admirable dogs and lovers, the subtle, honest workings of his mind. Here indeed was a novelist worthy of a reader's trust. So at last I could read his great book - or his greatest until its sequel.

"...The 2018 midterms were a test, not of insurgent left-leaning Democrats -- a disorganized and confused faction that was kept largely in check by the party's corporate leadership - but of whether Donald Trump could continue to hold a majority of white Americans in thrall to his non-stop, red-meat racist political theater. He could, and did...Trump is not their Frankenstein, but the Democrats and their media supplied most of the electricity that energized the monster..."

Now that the Democrats have taken back the House, people are pretending that there is some sort of meaningful check on Trump's Presidency. No such thing actually happened. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties will cut a deal in order to allow Trump's policies to continue. Speaker-Designate Pelosi even spoke about "bipartisanship" in her victory speech. The truth is, Pelosi is very unpopular with the people. She is the face of the Democratic Party, and when people see that, the Republicans will take back the House and hold the Senate when Trump wins re-election in 2020.

Let's put these results in context. Mid-term elections generally swing against the incumbent party in power. For the Democrats to barely take the House and lose ground in the Senate is disastrous. Remember that this was the same Senate map that the Democrats won in 2006. And if Donald Trump was this evil, horrible monster that these over-educated, cowardly, spineless, hypocritical and gutless liberals make him out to be, you wouldn't see Democrats voting for his policies or appointments. Even Saint Elizabeth of Warren voted to confirm Ben Carson. McKaskill and Heitkamp, in particular, voted with the Republicans so often that them being replaced by actual Republicans will have no major impact on policy. As for the Democrats blaming their losses on voter supression? They love to talk about that issue when rallying their base. Did they do anything to concretely address the issue when in power?

No, the truth is under no circumstances is it a good idea to vote for a Democrat. You are just giving your seal of approval to the corporatists who control the party. I'll say more about this in a different thread, but for now, this idea of a "left" take-over of the Democratic Party has been around for decades, and it hasn't come to fruition. The Democrats are experts at allowing enough lefties like Ocasio Cortez and Kucinich in their ranks as congressmen to convince the left that, "no this time we can take over" and then the issues the left championed fall off the table. Let's also state right now that the Democratic nominee for 2020 will be from the corporatist wing. They will not allow Bernie or Tulsi to take it because the public policy positions advocated by these 2 hurts the donor class that funds the Democrats. Demexit all the way!

The DSA plus the other Democratic left organizations (Justice Democrats, Our Revolution et al) are well aware that they will face the wrath of the corporate Democrats and their corrupt political consultants in the next 2 years. However, they now have a small but talented caucus of a dozen or so Representatives in congress, and they have many tens of thousands, if not millions of active members, who will be working to extend their influence. They have many candidates who didn't quite make it this year, but will just keep campaigning for the next primaries in 2020. The establishment Democrats have the nomenclatura on their side, and they have lots of money, but very few actual voluntary activists. It should be interesting.

A dozen seats in a Caucus of approximately 220 elected representatives where the party brass controls things like committee assignments means nothing. The party brass will allow these people in front of a camera to give credibility to the idea that the left can work within the Demorcatic Party while doing everything behind the scenes to bend or marginalize them and othrewise thwart any progressive ideas they might have.

Don't believe me? Remember what happened when the Sanders wing of the party rallied behind Keith Ellison for DNC Chair? Even with support from some of the more enlightened members of the Establishment wing, the Establishment parchuted Tom Perez into the position.

Aristotle, I agree that taking over the Democratic Party will be extremely difficult. However, I think it is more feasible than starting a third party to the left of the Dems. Neither tactic has a good chance of success. If I were to put my feeling in numbers, I would say that starting a third party has a 1 in 50 chance of success, but taking over the Democratic party has 1 in 20. Both are not great, but the alternative is armed rebellion, which I reject a priori.

This is basically like saying “no this time my vote is going to count!”

From time to time the corporate imperialists will toss the gullible progressives a few crumbs. Such as a presidential candidate like Barak Obama. And in turn will make them support progressing imperialism in Africa/ Middle East

Aristotle, I agree that taking over the Democratic Party will be extremely difficult. However, I think it is more feasible than starting a third party to the left of the Dems. Neither tactic has a good chance of success. If I were to put my feeling in numbers, I would say that starting a third party has a 1 in 50 chance of success, but taking over the Democratic party has 1 in 20. Both are not great, but the alternative is armed rebellion, which I reject a priori.

People are dying and suffering everyday in the US from preventable murders, disease suicide stress etc etc.

If the US underwent a serious violent revolution, this could all be put to an end.

Same goes for Brazil, around 75k people die every year from preventable murders! The country is literally at war with itself. But somehow you feel that a revolution wouldn’t be right because “too many people will die”?!?!?

Really?

I should edit to add that I could be adding more to your actual comment MM, but please clarify thanks

Aristotle, I agree that taking over the Democratic Party will be extremely difficult. However, I think it is more feasible than starting a third party to the left of the Dems. Neither tactic has a good chance of success. If I were to put my feeling in numbers, I would say that starting a third party has a 1 in 50 chance of success, but taking over the Democratic party has 1 in 20. Both are not great, but the alternative is armed rebellion, which I reject a priori.

I never said that taking over the Democratic Party was extremely difficult. I said it would be impossible. The corporate backers will not allow a progressive takeover. Period. This reminds me of the 2 years between Bush's re-election and the 2006 mid terms. There was plenty of organizing and mobilizing within the Democratic Party during this time. Then the Republican brand tanked so badly as to guarantee a massive Democratic victory in 2006. The party brass then made sure to run lots of conservative Democrats in winnable districts to ensure that progressive policy could not be implemented by the Democrats. If Trump's popularity continues to drag down the Republican brand, then you will once again see a flood of corporatists into the Democratic Party, and the organizations you mentioned will not be able to stem that tide. It makes just as much sense for progressives to try and take over the Republican Party.

As for the path to victory? I outlined one in the "Jill Stein for President" thread that involves starting through smaller, independently-minded states. But there is another very good reason to refuse to vote for a Democrat under any circumstances. Let's take Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. I believe she ran for public office to be of service to her community and her country. Of course she decided to run as a Democrat because that is the only viable party around. Now let's assume that you have a critical mass of lefties who will not vote for the Democrats no matter what. This might encourage her and other progressives to run outside the Democratic Party. If she was able to mobilize people in her community to knock off a high-ranking Democratic Congressman, why can't people mobilize independently to knock off Republican or Democratic politicians?

Another issue I have with the Justice Democrats happens to revolve around one of its key founders, Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks. TYT has built its brand around them being so much smarter than conservatives, and insulting them as being stupid. Jill Stein told Cenk to his face that the left has failed to take over the Democratic Party before. What does Cenk then do? Start a group to try and take over the Democratic Party, acting as if it is this new revolutionary idea. For someone who seems to pride himself on being smarter than everyone else, the ignornace here is breathtaking. Furthermore, rather than using his platform to mobilize support for third parties in big, safe states like New York, Texas, California, Maryland, or New Jersey, he swalloed the MSM BS about Clinton being the lesser evil and we all have to vote for her because Trump is a horrible monster. Leverage over the Democratic Party? Leverage only works if you are prepared to leave, which Cenk has clearly demonstrated that he hasn't.

The hypocisy of progressive media outlets criticizing third parties while doing nothing to actually help them is evident in California. 3 Green candidates made it onto the November ballot. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a household name in progressive circles. How many can actually name those 3 candidates? Keep in mind that in California, the primary functions as essentially a large runoff. Tuesday's vote was between the Greens and the Democrats in each district, so there was no reason to fear electing a Republican on a vote split. Why not actually go out and support the most progressive candidates in those races, where they have a long shot chance of breaking through, not necessarily this year, but maybe in 2020 if the current incumbents retire?

NDPP, thank you so much for those videos you posted featuring Jimmy Dore and Abby Martin. Jimmy has remained true to his progressive values, and Martin has an amazing ability to cut through the BS and to tell it like it is. I especially enjoyed her commentary on The Real News panel.

I have never run across a more grumbling bunch of negative snivelling feuna-heerna-dingers in my entire life!!!

1. The Democrats took over control of the house.

2. The Repubkicans stand to lose some senate seats in the recounts.

3. Trump is angry, childish, abusive and insulting to visible minority reporters. He's in temper tantrum mode. He is totally unhinged right now.

4. The NY South DA's office has a dossier on Trump regarding his payoff to Stormy Daniels which can set off impeachment proceedings starting in January if the Democrats so choose to take that route. Article

5. Whittaker, the new Auditor General, could be in a conflict of interest situation and is under pressure to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation which may or may not be made public when concluded. Whittaker may also in hot water of his own with a patent company in Florida that he is on the board of directors with regarding disabled veteran's life savings.

"But Whitaker's role on the board of World Patent Marketing Inc also has drawn scrutiny. The Federal Trade Commission accused the firm of scamming its members, and received a $26 million judgement against it to settle fraud allegations.

Whitaker served as a paid advisor and also wrote an email in 2015 warning an angry customer not to complain in public or face consequences."

Everyone knows that Wall St. is in control of both political parties, and you can argue and snivel about the lack of revolution and the fallacy of democracy all you want, but some of us are happy and have something to rejoice about right now.

You grumps are acting like a bunch if miserable old party poopers. Some of you need to lighten up a lot and just absorb all the Republican misery that is taking place right now. This stress and doom is going to hang around all over the winter festivities season and make their lives a living hell.

Just relax guys and sit back and let yourselves take it all in. It is much more enjoyable than whining about your lack if total anarchy and revolution.

3. Trump is angry, childish, abusive and insulting to visible minority reporters. He's in temper tantrum mode. He is totally unhinged right now.

He's been that way almost as long as he has been in the public eye. Tell me something I don't know.

Misfit wrote:

4. The NY South DA's office has a dossier on Trump regarding his payoff to Stormy Daniels which can set off impeachment proceedings starting in January if the Democrats so choose to take that route.

a) There was clear evidence to impeach Bush and remove him from office. In the final 2 years of his Presidency when the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they chose not to. What makes you think they will do so this time?

b) The Senate is controlled by the Republican Party. Do you think they will turn on their own President?

c) Say Trump is impeached, that means that Mike Pence becomes President. Is that a better outcome?

Misfit wrote:

5. Whittaker, the new Auditor General, could be in a conflict of interest situation and is under pressure to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation which may or may not be made public when concluded. Whittaker may also in hot water of his own with a patent company in Florida that he is on the board of directors with regarding disabled veteran's life savings.

Government agencies have been captured by the corporate interests they've been tasked with monitoring and regulating for a long time.

Misfit wrote:

Everyone knows that Wall St. is in control of both political parties

So why support either one?

Misfit wrote:

You grumps are acting like a bunch if miserable old party poopers. Some of you need to lighten up a lot and just absorb all the Republican misery that is taking place right now. This stress and doom is going to hang around all over the winter festivities season and make their lives a living hell.

If you want to enjoy the results that is your decision to make. I enjoyed the results of the 2006 mid-term election results. Then the Democratic controlled congress failed to rein in the Bush Administration on the issue of the Iraq war, which is ironically the issue that propelled the Democrats to power. Obama then went on to expand military operations to several countries. I decided after that that the Democrats were not going to fool me again.

People are dying and suffering everyday in the US from preventable murders, disease suicide stress etc etc.

If the US underwent a serious violent revolution, this could all be put to an end.

Same goes for Brazil, around 75k people die every year from preventable murders! The country is literally at war with itself. But somehow you feel that a revolution wouldn’t be right because “too many people will die”?!?!?

Really?

I should edit to add that I could be adding more to your actual comment MM, but please clarify thanks

I am almost but not quite a pacifist. I do believe the use of violence can be justified in self defence, but only in the face of immediate violence against oneself or one's family/friends. I can support and participate in general strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, and other types of non-violent resistance to authority, but my personal ethical sense would not allow me to participate in a violent uprising. In other words, I'm just a wimp (or cuck, or other insult of your choice).

People are dying and suffering everyday in the US from preventable murders, disease suicide stress etc etc.

If the US underwent a serious violent revolution, this could all be put to an end.

Same goes for Brazil, around 75k people die every year from preventable murders! The country is literally at war with itself. But somehow you feel that a revolution wouldn’t be right because “too many people will die”?!?!?

Really?

I should edit to add that I could be adding more to your actual comment MM, but please clarify thanks

I am almost but not quite a pacifist. I do believe the use of violence can be justified in self defence, but only in the face of immediate violence against oneself or one's family/friends. I can support and participate in general strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, and other types of non-violent resistance to authority, but my personal ethical sense would not allow me to participate in a violent uprising. In other words, I'm just a wimp (or cuck, or other insult of your choice).

That still makes no sense MM???

If no affirmative action is taken, 10’s of thousands will die every year!

People are dying and suffering everyday in the US from preventable murders, disease suicide stress etc etc.

If the US underwent a serious violent revolution, this could all be put to an end.

Same goes for Brazil, around 75k people die every year from preventable murders! The country is literally at war with itself. But somehow you feel that a revolution wouldn’t be right because “too many people will die”?!?!?

Really?

I should edit to add that I could be adding more to your actual comment MM, but please clarify thanks

I am almost but not quite a pacifist. I do believe the use of violence can be justified in self defence, but only in the face of immediate violence against oneself or one's family/friends. I can support and participate in general strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, and other types of non-violent resistance to authority, but my personal ethical sense would not allow me to participate in a violent uprising. In other words, I'm just a wimp (or cuck, or other insult of your choice).

Violence would be counter-productive. A violent uprising in the US would be the excuse for a crackdown and suppression worse than what exists now and lead to a loss of many of the tools that could be used against the present regime. It would be absolutely stupid.

The president seems concerned about his security but it is hard to see an enemy of his wanting to take him out violently. Him becoming a martyr to his cult is the worst way all this could end for those opposing trumpism. Most prefer to see him rot in a jail cell or a massive coronary event following a bucket of KFC.

I read an interesting observation from the US that could apply to Canada. It is an alternative to PR designed for them.

The idea was to elect two members and then use integers to determine voting weight. This is more like a form of proportional voting.

It would be interesting to design a model to see how this could work. The advantage is that it would allow a constituency to reflect votes without having to get so large. This is a point in Canada given the geographical size of ridings. Combined with other PR models it could make a government's mandate reflect the proportion of votes, allow for some larger ridings where people would have more than one member (I really like people having more than one MP they can contact) and weight votes very accurately.

In a multi-party system such as Canada this weighting could be used to eaddress votes lost in ridings where the party could not meet a local threshold.

I am not sure of the downsides yet -- although complication would be one so finding a way to simplify this would be essential.

Mid-term elections generally swing against the incumbent party in power. For the Democrats to barely take the House and lose ground in the Senate is disastrous.

Democrats will end up with nearly a 40 seat gain in the house. Their best gain since the post-Watergate election of 1974. Better than when they took back the house in 2006. They are also heading for an 8 point national vote win. They were facing probably the worst senate map any party has faced probably since right after WWII. A two seat net loss with that landscape is actually an accomplishment. Had Clinton won, Republicans would have ended up gaining 8-10 seats.

Mid-term elections generally swing against the incumbent party in power. For the Democrats to barely take the House and lose ground in the Senate is disastrous.

Democrats will end up with nearly a 40 seat gain in the house. Their best gain since the post-Watergate election of 1974. Better than when they took back the house in 2006. They are also heading for an 8 point national vote win. They were facing probably the worst senate map any party has faced probably since right after WWII. A two seat net loss with that landscape is actually an accomplishment. Had Clinton won, Republicans would have ended up gaining 8-10 seats.

Look ahead to the map they face in 2020 -- that one is much better with a lot of GOP seats up.

The question of how socialists should conduct themselves in office is a longstanding debate on the Left; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s bona fides as a qualitatively different type of leftist elected official is a more recent one. It’s far too soon to make any definitive statements about Ocasio-Cortez’s time in office — she doesn’t even officially start for another two months. But given her actions this week, even her skeptics from the Left have to give her credit.

A few days ago, Ocasio-Cortez admitted she would not have enough money to secure an apartment in Washington, D.C., until she started drawing her congressional salary — a powerful statement about the role class plays in who is able to run for office (not to mention the affordable housing crisis in Washington). The median net worth of a member of the House was at least $900,000 in 2015.

More significantly, on Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez spent her first day on the Hill at an illegal demonstration in aspiring Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to push for a serious resolution to global warming.

quote:

Ocasio-Cortez also went up against the New York Democratic establishment on Tuesday by taking an aggressive stance against Amazon’s announced plan to move 25,000 high-paid tech workers into Queens. In this, Ocasio-Cortez joins fellow democratic socialist Lee Carter in questioning the corporate incentives model of economic development.

Virtually every major politician in New York City signed a letter encouraging Amazon to move to the city in 2017. And while a few have backtracked, most, including Governor Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio, remain extremely enthusiastic about the deal, while dismissing concerns about a lack of community input.

Directly juxtaposing corporate giveaways with lack of state funding for public projects, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, “Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.”

"It is clear that the so-called left wing of the Democratic Party is merely an outlet to bring those displeased with the Democrats into the Party, while conceding little to nothing on the actual issues. The Democrats themselves play a similar role with the Republicans. Add it all up and the degrees between 'revolution', 'resistance' and 'fascism' remain murky. In the face of a country clearly lacking a democracy, debate over policy appears almost as theatrics, when it appears at all..."

Countries with social political structures geared more towards socialism are more successful! This has been apparent for decades now.

But in the past, the US was always at the top of the world military and economic. However over the last few decades. With the erosion of unions lack of racial progress and poor social progress in general, things have changed.

And don’t kid yourselves, China, in my opinion is the game changer! They’re a powerhouse breathing down the neck of the US. If the US doesn’t evolve adopting more socialism, revolutionists within the US will strengthen grow spread and win more sympathy from within.

I’m going to give the benefit of doubt to these handful of so called socialist democratic congressional representatives. I say they’re going to get some traction and grow in numbers.

I think the Bernie Sanders experiment was just a teaser. But Bernie really isn’t the face that socialism should be putting forward in this very early fragile stage in the US. A woman from an alternative vs traditional US political background would be perceived as more authentic and should gain better traction.

"The military-intelligence apparatus accounts for the largest number of victorious Democratic challengers in Republican districts, more than lawyers (9), state and local government officials (7), businessmen/wealthy individuals (7), or others (8).

The influx of new members of Congress with recent experience in the CIA or military or civilian national security positions is unprecedented for the Democratic Party in the more than four decades since the Vietnam era..."

I was starting to lean on the optimistic side of these past midterms. But as you pointed out, the continued militarization of the US Democratic Party is right on schedule!

Should also point out that from what I’ve read, only NDPP has forwarded this important fact! Progressives have been so infatuated with a few maybe 5-6 tops potentially promising new reps, these potential imperialists conveniently slid under the radar!

Even if a majority of those in the military may share right wing views, it is not 100%. The Democrats choosing those who are progressive, so that the right cannot make the arguments that they tend to make.

All parties choose people who are minorities in groups considered stereotypical of their opponents to make them immune to some of the arguments and biases. Look at teh efforts the NDP goes through to promote when they get a banker or business person or military person on their side.

The result is not an indication of who they are but what they are trying to say they are not.

The Republicans constantly say the Democrats are not patriotic, anti business, don't support the troops, are not in favour of law in order. So they come up with a number of candidates that include military, business people who nonetheless hold progressive views. This is an attempt to prove that their party is not the stereotype theya re painted to be by the opposition.

Of course on the progressive side thare are those, as we can see here, who swallow the stereotype that the right have been trying to paint.

So yes, a majority may hold certain views but not all. Also many people become involved in public life due to what their experience taught them. We see with veterans quite a distinction between imperialists and those who glorify war and those who want to be in public life to prevent war. This has been demonstrated since the end of the First World War in popular media.

People complain about the right's advantages but they scream when the left tries to use tactics like this in order to address myths and stereotypes and level the playing field.

What is critical is what those candidates say about the issues including war and power. Less so, their personal experiences.

Look at teh efforts the NDP goes through to promote when they get a banker or business person or military person on their side.

The last military guy I remember in a high-profile NDP position was a guy named Derek Blackburn, an MP from the early 70s to the early 90s. He was the shadow critic for military affairs, and he REALLY looked the part...

But actually, just doing research right now, I can't find mention of his actually having served(he woulda been too young for World War II). But everything about him, his looks, mannerisms, even his name, was central-casting. Maybe they just picked him for that role because he came off as the polar opposite of a dope-smoking peacenik?

Even if a majority of those in the military may share right wing views, it is not 100%.

I'd be surprised if it were even 60%. For one thing, poor people are massively overrepresented among the enlisted, as are racial minorities (granted that being poor doesn't make one automatically left-wing, but it does tend to increase one's support for government programs). For another, being deployed in combat often (but not always) reduces one's enthusiasm for military adventurism. I've known veterans (both American and Canadian) of every imaginable political stripe, including a Quaker pacifist who enlisted as a nurse. You can't make any assumptions about the leanings of the ex-military.

You have some evidence to show that military experienced Democrats are more aggressive in terms of US public policy than non-military ones?

Please tell me more about Obama's Military record and the exact nature of civilian military experienced people in the Democratic Party are so different... We all want to know how this logic actually works.

Badgering someone and demanding proof that people who serve in the American military and spy agencies are potential imperialists. WTF

This is a place of discussion -- sweeping statements about individuals can be subject to a request for proof and that is not badgering.

There are a lot of people with military experience who are as progressive as anyone else in that system.

In fact, not everyone like you apparently claim to be, was fucking born fucking perfect and lives in the perfect fucking part of the country.

Allowing that individuals not all be tarred together based on their past or past experience or associations is a thing around much of the progressive community. It is a thing you might even run into some day.

Asking if there is any evidence that military experienced people in the Democratic party are any more likely to choose military action is a legitimate question -- especially as the more immediate examples were not military.

Again the example given was Obama - not military.

Biggest order for a bomb to be dropped was Trump. Not military.

Willingness to have people shoot at unarmed civilians on the border of the US is Trump. Not Military.

Yes there are people to criticize. A complex to criticize. A culture to criticize. A capitalist structure that thrives on military action. Military alliances to criticize. It seems there is enough there to not need to label every single damned person with military experience with this while claiming a request for proof is badgering.

It is legitimate to ask if those who retired from the military with the experience are any more likely to call for military aggressiveness.

Apart from being full of shit do you have anything real to offer on this or is this just another attempt by you to jump into a conversation to pile on with absolutely nothing real to offer but bullshit.

"Ho hum. Is there really any cause for thinking people in the US or elsewhere in the world for that matter, to suddenly think that the US has begun to climb out of its long decline? Does any reasonable person actually think that Democrats controlling the House of Representatives will change anything?

And so the pattern continues: lots of talk, no action, and increasing suffering at home and abroad. Welcome to the 'land of the free and the home of the brave."

"One result of the 'mania of bipartisanship' that followed the midterm elections - 'Democrats and Republicans joining hands' - is a campaign to target China, said prolific author and educator Dr Gerald Horne. Administration officials are calling corporate lobbyists 'unpaid agents of China' for opposing US sanction policies - another wrinkle in the New McCarthyism."

Indeed the fact that these people worked for spy agencies and/or the military is no reason to draw any conclusions. The fact that someone is a hedge fund manager does not mean they are bad people. The fact that someone works building tanks for the Saudis does not make them a bad person. So who the fuck cares about them as individuals. They support the imperialist institutions and that is what we are discussing not whether it is right to presume someone with those credentials might be a "potential imperialist" Hard to have a discussion about anti-inmpeprialsm when you can't discuss the imperialist class because some of them might be nice people.

"...A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence.

After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, 'homeland defense' and cyber warfare..."